Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/How Brown Saw the Baseball Game/archive2. I'm pinging you as you commented on the first one. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Curly Turkey, I am interest in hearing your thoughts about:

• This section? List of The Adventures of Tintin characters#Index of characters by album. It is an entire section in the List of The Adventures of Tintin characters article that lists each character by book.
  • You're using a semicolon to list the characters, which semantically is meant to be used for definition lists. Regular bullet lists useing asterisks would be better. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, thanks for helping me see reason, and I'm glad you apparently agree having the index section is good.
• This infobox? List of The Adventures of Tintin characters#Allan Thompson It is a test; an infobox has been added to a supporting character appearing in the same list (inspired by Template:Comics character list header and List of Marvel Comics characters)
  • I'm not a fan of those superhero lists. Some things to think about
    • One thing about infoboxes is that there are a lot of editors who believe that they should only summarize what's already in the article or subsection. The lists of appearances are not in the bodies of those subsections.
    • I'm not a fan of collapsible boxes. I realize you're likely doing it to save space, since so many infoboxes will end up running into each other. One problem they cause is with accessibility—they can be difficult for those with disabilities (or those with smartphones) to uncollapse. Personally, for this and the above reason, I'd put the appearances into the body, either in a "So-and-so appeared in X, Y, and Z" style, or in a list. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, I'll remove it. Thanks for reminding me of other types of readers; good point. Some of the prose of a given character actually does mention the books the character appeared in, but not exhaustively, so I thought the infobox could cover the rest ... but not if info-in-box-not-in-prose is frowned upon; thanks for that knowledge.
• This question? Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#List of The Adventures of Tintin characters It was asked today of the good people who monitor Wikipedia:Media Copyright Questions, as illustrations should be somehow added to the article.
  • I sympathize with the desire to have a well-illustrated article (check out my ukiyo-e article to see just how much I sympathize), but at the same time nonfree files are an issue with an encyclopaedia whose goal is to be free. Exactly how many images is too many is a legal grey area that only a court can tell us with certainty, so it's best to keep them to a minimum—but of course that "minimum" will be a subject of debate. Personally, I'm on the copyright paranoid end of the spectrum, and would prefer to keep such images off entirely unless doing so does damage to the article. Perhaps a single image with a lot of characters in it would do, if I were to do it, but, like others, you might not like that advice—my attempts at removing the lead image from The End of the Road have been met with resistance (which drives me nuts—it's totally unnecessary, and the only thing keeping that page from being 100% free).
    • Thank-you for sympathizing, I believe you. And the ukiyo-e article looks beautiful! I am in complete agreement with you and with Wikipedia's non-free image policy. Having said that, I agree that the restrained adding of non-free illustrations, especially when no other illustration is actually possible (i.e. Tintin), is okay--but remember, with great restraint. Therefore, I was wondering if three images would be cool for that article, but of course no more than that. You may be right, perhaps only one more, because I do agree with the spirit of what you are saying. However, I'm afraid I disagree with your The End of the Road initiative; as one image for the infobox falls within this kind of "restrained" use. Your ukiyo-e is full of free images so that is irrelevant to this discussion. (Oh, FYI: I saw an error on File:Chikanobu_(1887) "Template without parameter: please specify why the underlying work is public domain", just passing it on to you in case this helps you.)
• The size of this article? Readable prose size is 72K.
  • That's pretty big, but it is a list—one of the issues with having a long page is the strain it puts on a reader's attention. Readers are less likely to read a page like this starting from the first word and continuing through to the last. If you think it's an issue, you could break it up into separate pages—you could break oout the appearances by book list, or you could break it down by subsets of the alphabet. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess I'm not imagining anyone reading it from top to bottom, but instead consulting it. I think I can trim this a bit, though. Thanks for your thoughts here too.
• Life in general? Leave your comments. Thanks, I appreciate your expertise. Prhartcom (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Life's good! Everyone at home's managed to keep healthy for the holidays, except for a vomitous Christmas for the youngest. Did you enjoy your holidays? Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may not have imagined you as a family man! Good show! It is the same with me, however they are older (as yours soon will be). Have a great new year. P.S. I need support on Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tintin_(character)/archive1, I wonder if you could help when you can? (It has been copyedited for tone recently.) THANKS in advance for that and thanks again for your expertise above and for taking your time. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have heard that the Tintin article needs an improvement in exactly what you said: Tone. Drat. I am attempting to improve the tone of that article now. I may have to give up this submission and resubmit it again someday. Let me see if I can fix it, though. More later. Prhartcom (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the article closely enough yet to comment on that "strong oppose", but the editor has a point about GA—in fact, some editors believe it should be mandatory to bring an article through GA or at least PR before submitting. If it's your first solo FA, I'd recommend sending it first through GA, and then through GOCE before submitting. Doing so would raise the confidence of potential reviewers (who are volunteers who have to budget their time, after all) that the article is ready, if nothing else. Again, I'm a bit busy until next week, but whether you withdraw or not I'll give the article a close look then. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl's recent edits also raise issues of comprehensiveness and stability—for one thing, she added an entire section, which brings down the level of confidence for "comprehensiveness" quite a bit. After seeing just how much there was to add, I'd definitely recommend withdrawal and make sure these issues are sorted out before resubmitting. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your recommendation I just just requested that this FAC be withdrawn, at least temporarily. I think Midnightblueowl and I can get this whipped into shape in the next month (you are more than welcome to stop by during this) and I can try again. P.S. I am reviewing her article for GA here: Talk:The Black Island/GA1. Thanks again for your thoughts on List of The Adventures of Tintin characters. Prhartcom (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You took part in the FAC of Waveguide filter which has now been promoted to a featured article. I have nominated it as a candidate for Today's featured article. If you wish, you can support that nomination here. Regards, SpinningSpark 17:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Blind Leading the Blind you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Blind Leading the Blind for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a moment to give your opinion? Of course you do. Midnightblueowl and I are looking at the new Tintin (character) article and are wondering about the inclusion of certain sections: "Tintinology" and "controversy" sections Prhartcom (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that and was about to comment. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took a little bit to figure out what you were getting at with the instruction on "with some critics": since it's one critic being quoted, is it really "some" who hold this opinion? -- I went through about 10 different directions before thinking "oh shit, that's what Curly Turkey means"--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Shit" is usually what Curly Turkey means. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh the joys of text communication. lol.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have Something Black in the American Psyche on a PDF for you. Shoot me an email and I will send it in the reply. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Gertie the Dinosaur know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 8, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 8, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Gertie the Dinosaur (1914) is an animated short film by American cartoonist Winsor McCay (c. 1867–1934). He first used the film before live audiences as an interactive part of his vaudeville act: the frisky, childlike Gertie did tricks at the command of her master. His employer, newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst, later curtailed McCay's vaudeville activities, so McCay added a live-action introductory sequence to the film for its theatrical release. Gertie was the first film to use animation techniques such as keyframes, registration marks, tracing paper, the Mutoscope action viewer, and animation loops. Although Gertie is popularly thought to be the earliest animated film, it was McCay's third, and his earlier films were preceded by animation made at least as far back as J. Stuart Blackton's 1900 film The Enchanted Drawing. Gertie influenced the next generation of animators, including the Fleischer brothers, Otto Messmer, Paul Terry, and Walt Disney. McCay abandoned a sequel, Gertie on Tour (c. 1921), after producing about a minute of footage. Gertie is the best preserved of his films—others are lost or in fragments—and has been preserved in the US National Film Registry. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely! + the reference to my name (I almost feel pictured) and the glorious line under the image in the infobox! Precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gods' Man may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• flow.((sfn|Spiegelman|2010a|p=x)) The work inspired Ward to create a wordless novel of his own,((sfn|Spiegelman|2010b|pp=804–805–1971)((sfn|Spiegelman|2010d|p=833)) of the publisher Smith & Cape. Smith offered him a contract

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A Contract with God you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Maunus -- Maunus (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted my first set of comments. Looking forward to hearing your own.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 January 30#File:A Contract with God - back - Baronet trade paper.jpg concerning an article you have edited. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're probably right about the back cover, now that I think about it. That might just have been me being overenthusiastic. If you want to take it down or wait for the admin to do it, either way, it's certainly OK on my end. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article A Contract with God you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:A Contract with God for comments about the article. Well done! Well done! User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Woo-hoo! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I'm planning to put this thing up for FAC sometime this year, so if either of you have any more nitpicks or sources to add, please Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)![reply]

Hello! Today an anon IP in good faith changed the first sentence of one of the Tintin articles (The Castafiore Emerald) from "the comics series" to "the series of comics". I reverted it, but since I do enjoy questioning seemingly insignificant reality, what do you think? Keep as it is, or were they on to something? Prhartcom (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and thanks for your quick reply. I thought that maybe they were on to something, as I realized it didn't sound too bad actually, but I wasn't sure. That's fine. As you know, I just got the first sentence consistent across all the Tintin articles, so I am not in favor of changing. Let me know if you ever think of anything that is truly better, but it's fine for now. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; that's why I wanted to run it by you. I'm glad to get your thoughts. This is an interesting one. Prhartcom (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curly Turkey, I've changed the blurb image to File:Fuck film interview grid.tif, per your suggestion at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Nonspecific_date_1. Perhaps you could revisit? Thank you for your helpful suggestion, — Cirt (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.

I agreed with all of your suggestions, so I've directly implemented them all.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the Main Page appearance! :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are your intentions here? Its a fine article. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil: Well, thanks for the kind words! Is this in response to something, or just a general question? I'm hoping to bring it to FA, but I can't shake the feeling something's missing in the "Legacy" section (two centuries of silence!), and I came across a mention somewhere of an untranslated analysis in German that I've been unsuccessful at tracking down (can't remember the name or author of it now, I think it was from the 1930s, and is supposed to have made comparisons to the Wheel of Fortune and certain other things).

It's unlikely I'll be doing any more research on it soon. I've got university courses eating up my free time. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A general question. I liked the way the article had been developing before the PR, but havnt seen much happening since. Ceoil (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article's on my list of priorities, it's just that Wikipedia itself has been low on my list of priorities this year, and I have other articles queued up for FAC as well (here's one!). Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A painting? Unrelated to comics? I am both surprised and impressed. Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not as unrelated as you think! I got into Bruegel after reading about him in an interview with Robert Crumb. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, but still (topically) unrelated... and very different subjects to write about. I know... I'm terrible at writing art articles, and I'm not that proud of my three attempts so far (Extermination of Evil, The Princess from the Land of Porcelain, and Streatham portrait). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I get where you're coming from—I'd love to take a stab at, say, the Avro Arrow article, but aspects of it seem beyond my reach (and I'm surprised I got as far as I did with the Japanese serow article—even with a great big helping hand). I always have had quite a bit of an interest in art and literature, though—I decided to devote myself mostly to comics articles mainly because they're all shit, which gives me a lot of unhindered work to do (unhindered because the Comics project doesn't pay much attention to non-superhero articles, which is all I care about). What gave you trouble with those painting articles, and what leaves you unsatisfied about them? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The descriptions of the works themselves (didn't find much discussion of it for any of them, though I think the Streatham portrait has a good source... just need to see if it's reliable or not), and the themes. My post-secondary education is in Indonesian literature, which has entirely different tropes and themes than European works. I couldn't tell you, for instance, that fleurs-de-lis were not allowed to be worn by non-kings and queens until I read that same statement elsewhere. To be honest, I almost always write painting articles only because I want the painting to be featured at POTD (I've done articles on films, like Island of Lost Men, for the same reason). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm disappointed at the lack of comprehensiveness in Extermination, and the Influences section in Princess is ... ugh... (Reception could use more reviews too). The Streatham portrait is probably in the best shape, though I think the description still needs serious work. The author of this, J. Stephan Edwards, completed his doctoral thesis on Jane, and he's been cited by Yale Alumni Magazine, so that source may be an RS... if it is, that article and a couple others on the site might push this into GA territory. Or perhaps my standards are too high after seeing so much of Ceoil and Victoria's fantastic work? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I don't think they're articles to be unproud of. If it's a matter of sources, I guess there's not always a lot to do about that, especially as, being overseas, you're kinda locked out of good non-online sources. And sometimes the sources just don't exist—I'm sure I could do an awesome article on Cartooning if there were only a few half-decent, serious sources on the subject. Almost motivates me to want to write a book myself ... I was thinking the Streatham portarait looked pretty complete (though I haven't actually read it yet), and your Hekija-e is far more comprehensive than the Japanese article. I guess motivation is a big thing, too—I did The Blind because I really wanted to see a couple of the underdeveloped Bruegel articles worked up (still got my eye on a couple of others). Maybe the whole issue is that you've got a pile of FAs and GAs under your belt, so anything less seems inadequate now? (holy shit, I just looked at the list of 'em—they don't even fit on a page) Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • *shrug* Perhaps. I know motivation is a major factor; Ruma Maida was essentially at FA comprehensiveness within 24 hours of me watching it, because I thought it was a cool movie, and I've been so interested in Roekiah that I took advantage of my visit to Sinematek Indonesia to find sources on her despite it not quite being related to my graduate thesis (on the adaptation of novels into films in the Indies; she was never in one). And yet, despite having decent sources, I haven't revisited Titiek Puspa in years [despite having a 400 page biography now, although that's maybe 25% pictures], and D. Djajakusuma could use some more work with the biography I purchased in Jakarta last December). If you do get Blind up to FAC, don't be afraid to ping me. I think it would be interesting to review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, now having seen the rate at which you crank out these articles, perhaps "lack of motivation" ain't the issue—maybe it's just finding room in your busy schedule. Motivation's definitely subject to caprice—I never originally intended to do any of those McCay films until I realized I had all the sources I need at my fingertips, and Gertie's anniversary was coming up. I'll likely never do another film.
                Thanks for offering to look at The Blind. I probably won't put it up any time soon, but I'll let you know when I do. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Darn, and I was rather hoping for another early cartoon. Like that 2 second anime clip ... Katsudō Shashin... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder how "comprehensive" that'd have to be to make it through FAC Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say... 3 until 4k, max. Mostly about the discovery and attempts to date it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, you bitch. Now you've gotten me to download, transcode, & upload a copy of the video to Commons, and to fix up the article a bit. I did come across a source—a blog that quotes the Mainichi Shinbun newspaper. I can't find the original source for the article to properly cite it, though, but it's got a little bit more interesting information. Apparently it wasn't hnad-painted to the film, but was done using a pattern method from the late Miji era called kappa printing. I don't understand how it works, but it seems to explain why the colour registration's off (I was wondering). It was on 35mm film that was affixed in a loop (so maybe it wasn't a fragment after all, but was actually the whole film? That's my speculation). Nobuyuki Tsugata speculates it was made without knowledge of any Western animated film, as they were few and not well known, so it was likely the work of Japanese ingenuity. The article's from 2005. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • *Eyes twinkling* I must say, being able to read Japanese really helps there. I couldn't find anything more than the YouTube video. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, what Japanese skills I have aren't doing much good with a fun whose nameis simply Motion Picture. Oh, I get a pile of hits, just not helpful ones... Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm also getting the feeling that "Katsudô Syasin" is the generic "title" they give to any untitled film they find, so that it's only the "official" title in English sources (as if a translator took "Anonymous" too literally as the name of a writer, or something). Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Now that's hilarious. Oh, I do love translating... and laughing at poor or weird translations. I had a heck of a time trying to figure out why they translated the characters' names in Hero... though come to think of it, it could have been a deliberate choice to lampshade that these are not their real names. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Or maybe because Chinese names are so hard to pronounce. When I was living in Alberta they had a job training program for natives. We had a couple of sisters who were surnamed Powdernose. I couldn't imagine why they would translate that---in their home & native land, no less. Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Powdernose? Oh my. I'm just glad Indonesians don't usually translate their names. Someone like Good Things, or Three Good Loves, or... I mean, my ex's name meant "A Revelation from God, April's Flower" or something similar if you wanted to translate it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Japanese names are like that, too, but you often can't tell what they "mean" until they're written down. My wife's name translates as something like "felicitous branch"—but you would never guess that (even as a native) without seeing it written down, so in the end a lot of the names are just like English names—they seem meaningless, until you track down their etymologies. I mean, you'd be surprised, but if you tracked down the etymologies of "Curly" and "Turkey" you'd find they actually have quite deep significance under their opaque exteriors.
                  I'm slowly figuring out some of the stuff about this film—apparently this "kappa" thing was some sort of device for impressing images for magic lanterns. It's hard to make sense of something when the words mean nothing to you in either the base or target language—I didn't know what a magic lantern was. It also looks like 1907 is the earliest proposed date for the thing, but not one accepted yet by the authorities—it appears that Western otaku have glommed onto that date and refuse to let go. Apparently 1915 is another likely date, because there were a number of Western cartoons that were shown in Japan that year, and they may have inspired Katudō Syasin. I'll wait until I've digested some of these sources a bit more before editing the article again, because I don't want to include any more inaccuracies than I already have. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Fascinating bit about the names. Alright, I'll let you and your need to avoid Wikipedia (somewhat) be. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The blind leading the blind TFA

Fascinating TFA, precious again, the topic mentioned before ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC) User_talk:Salvio_giuliano#The_blind_leading_the_blind[reply]

• I can't follow the conversation there, but if you're happy, I'm happy! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy? Look at "just" on top of my talk (twice) and see that I am far from happy. - The conversation is unrelated, derived from the infoboxes case (remember, this case that was started because of too many reverts of new infoboxes, and within a few hours of the proposal was turned into: let's ban one editor and we have peace. Now, that editor wasn't banned but is restricted from adding any infobox, even to his own articles, - someone will need to explain to me how that is any good for the project (or how he is in conflict with himself). He asked to have the restriction lifted for a limited number of articles (biographies that would normally have an infobox), - the arbs say no, someone will need to explain ... - I try to show that the infobox war is a myth ;) - I will need someone to explain how believing in it religiously is any good for the project. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ...wrong choice of words! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Willing to learn where I chose the wrong words, but this is not clear ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant me! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "happy"? - Well, I didn't get that ;) - I feel like the one-eyed seeing that we have more important things to do than still thinking about an "infobox war" that was not fought for more than a year, - but I don't have the language to tell the arbitrators who seem to be blind for that. The one who saw it (no foul. play on.) resigned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox wars are over? I guess it's been a while since I've notice a kerfuffle over them, but was there something that brought them to an end? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As said in the linked discussion: If somebody points out a battle after 2012 (Cosima Wagner on 25 December, one day after her birthday on Christmas, - if that was one) I will learn something new. We have an educated discussion at Chopin (after a new editor inserted an infobox, - how will a new editor ever understand that a composer is different from a scientist?), and several people agree that Siegfried wasn't a battle. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Curly Turkey. I happened to see this thread and wanted to comment. I started to say I saw this "discussion", (mostly from habit), but knew that to call it a discussion was certainly a misnomer; so I changed it to "thread". In fact that is the main reason I wanted to comment here; because it wasn't a discussion, it was the normal bullshit that happens on that talk page. I wanted to make sure at least someone told you that it would have been nearly impossible for you to have approached the matter any better, or to have magically found the right prose to have been more clear. It's nothing but a damn shame that you practically apologized three or four times for having done nothing wrong; in fact you were made to feel an apology was required because you had done everything about as right as anyone could hope to have done. I guess I just wanted to be sure you were unequivocally clear about where the bullshit was coming from, and to kinda know that you had metaphorically stumbled into the twilight zone; forced to see things you would have been exponentially better off to not have seen. I don't know why we act as if we must have this pathetic place on Wikipedia, but it is practically certain that Jimbo Wales could post a comment in that debased area, then be told by the smart dumb guy who runs the place to go fuck his self, and then have ten or more well respected administrators explain how it was all his fault anyway. I wish I didn't feel a need to ensure that you were aware of these things, but because I did feel such a need, I made sure that you knew. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for the pat on the back. I was well aware of who I was dealing with when I posted the question. I'd assumed I'd have my intelligence gratuitously insulted, and then either get my answer or not—I was curious enough about his reasoning, and knowing whom I was questioning it'd've been hard to take the inevitable insults personally. I didn't expect the headgames or the accusation of "personal attacks". It demonstrates the emptiness of his brokenrecord-ing about how "honest" he is compared to the whole rest of Wikipedia. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Curly Turkey. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)/archive2.
Message added 13:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

--Jakob (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ukiyo-e you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that two of the web references have (2001–2002a) and (2001–2002b), but that is not distinguished on the individual web pages. More out of curiosity than anything else, why the a and b?

The date range fields are just supposed to have numbers, no alpha characters, so that would be helpful to know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's standard in many academic styles, and is recommended for Citation Style 1 (read about it here). Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello -- I've listed the article Horrible Histories (2009 TV series) at Peer Review, and I was wondering if you could take a look? It's recently been promoted to a GA and the reviewer tells me it has FA potential, so I'm hoping for some help in identifying areas to be brought up to standard before taking it to FA review. Any assistance you could give would be most appreciated. Thanks, Shoebox2 talk 05:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ukiyo-e you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ukiyo-e for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started that discussion but I didn't involve the discussion. I plan to wait maybe 3 days or no more than one week (Or may be 2 weeks like the article deletion nomination) so that each side can offer more sources about this. After this, I will invite all editors who joined this discussion before to find a solution for this discussion. I think in that time, there maybe lots of sources for this discussion. Maybe I will find a way to vote. Is that OK for this?Miracle dream (talk)14:55, 14 February 2014

Hello,

I have roughly constructed a table listing estimates of different scholars in response to the demand of Zmflavius of finding "reliable sources or evidence that indicates support for the figure of 200,000+". However, User:Banzaiblitz keeps removing this table from the discussion page of Nanking Massacre. I do not know why I cannot post this table on the discussion page of Nanking Massacre for discussion. I invite you to visit the table here before I can post it on the discussion page without any bothering. If you have any question or any demand for translation please contact my talk page. I will try reply as soon as possible. --Snorri (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stopping Banzaiblitz from removing my table. I notice that Banzaiblitz is modifying my comment (see page history here), removing my words and trying to cover up this affair. I do not care about the new "version" of my comment but I feel a little scared because I did not know the one can modify other users' comment. It is like a censorship. What should I do? I do not want to make an edit war with him. --Snorri (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again but Banzaiblitz is removing the content of my table based on his own judgement without any word in the page. I even don't have the chance to react if I did not notice it from the page history, [1]. I don't think it is the right way to discuss. If he has something to say about the contents he should leave a comment, not removing the evidence. I cannot talk with him in edit summary. What should I do?--Snorri (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your proposal in the talk page. I apologize here if I have been acting not calm enough. I think I have always been trying to discuss in a reasonable and peaceful way. However I find that I can no longer communicate with Banzaiblitz if he continues acting like this. At the very present time he deletes MtBell's comment and modifies my comment again (see here). I can discuss with him if he just leaves comments to discuss about my sources. But if he deleted them directly without leaving any comment, I do not know how to discuss with him. I collected and sorted these sources with great care and presented them to reply to Zmflavius (Not Banzaiblitz), but got deleted again and again. I have to think that Banzaiblitz is doing this on purpose to interrupt the discussion. --Snorri (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Banzaiblitz made another table listing the Japanese side estimates (mainly Japanese, with a few Westerners) ranging from 40,000 to 200,000. I think the two table adding up present a quite complete picture of the current estimates (not including the mutual critics made by historians of each side). The problem is that Banzaiblitz seems to be rather unreasonable when it comes to the arguments that he does not like. It is in fact very pitiful because we are actually very close to a good solution if we keep to discuss in a reasonable and sincere way. --Snorri (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've emailed you about the NYT article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean that there's "far too much emphasis" placed on the two-volume nature of the book? It is a book in two volumes, which were each published separately, some years apart; you can still, today, easily find each volume separately in libraries or stores. The first paragraph clearly explains the situation of the two volumes and if you think it doesn't emphasize this enough, why don't we just straightforwardly say that it is a single book originally published in two volumes? Wolfdog (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfdog: Be sure of your facts before criticizing the guy who researched, wrote, and reffed the article, and brought it through the whole Good Article and Featured Article processes. Spiegelman never envisioned Maus as a two-volume book—that was done as an expedient (as detialed in the article body—have you read it?), and it later caused confusion, as when Ted Rall made high-profile, assinine comments about the second volume as a sequel (read it here), which led to the whole legal kerfuffle with Danny Hellman (and Legal Action Comics, etc). The article talks about the two volumes in the body—there is no need whatsoever to emphasize this publication trivia in the lead, any more than we should be listing the names of the individual chapters (which is how the book was orginally published—the two-volume version was but a stop along the way). Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never criticized you. I was only discussing the reality of how the book ended up being actually published. Your point is made. Wolfdog (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel that the mention of "porcupines" is a relevant point at all in the article? I'm wondering why it's included when we're trying to trim some of the trivial fat. Ideas? Wolfdog (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's trivial at all—a lot of readers are going to wonder how Spiegelman feels about Israel, and besides it has been noted by an awful lot of sources. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's more to it than that, though—in light of all the issues with choosing animals for races in the first place (what animal should Françoise be? Was the one guy who claimed to German really a German or a Jew, and how should it be presented?)—why would Spiegelman think of choosing an animal other than a mouse for the Israelis? A hint is there in the article—Hirsch suggests it's the relations of the characters that create their representations—the European and American Jews see/saw themselves as victims, while the Israelis have a stronger self-image—and Françoise is a mouse because of her association with Art and his (at least perceived) victimhood. It's a comment that seems flippant, but really gets to the heart of one of the key themes of the book. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I wasn't clear on all the sources focused on such a seemingly throwaway line. On another note, I again tried to revise the run-on involving Anja's fear of mice. Hope it seems more sensible now. Wolfdog (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I see a bigger problem than the quality of the prose—I can find the nazi attack dogs in WolfWolk's book, but not the bit about Anja being afraid of mice. It's definitely not on the same page as the attack dogs bit. These things need page references—do you have the book? Can you confirm which page this is on? If not, we can track down another source—it's unlikely nobody's mentioned it (Maus is one of those books that everyone and his cat has seemed to've written about). Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on Gods' Man getting promoted to FA...perhaps you'd like to raise it at TFA (hint hint). --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Requested moves#Backlog Since you have shown familiarity with article naming issues and the MOS guidelines for WP:COMMONNAME, you might want to look into the discussion at Talk:Joseph Schereschewsky#Move back to SIJ Schereschewksy?. The question is whether to move the article back to a name of reasonably long standing. Toward the end of the discussion there is a Summary ch (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a neutral notice to a WikiProject Comics member of a discussion at Talk:Al Plastino and an edit-war over fringe science and family/friend editing of Al Plastino. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Literary Barnstar
		Congratulations on a much-deserved FA star for Gods' Man and for all you do on the subject of graphic novels and wordless novels. It has been an immense pleasure and learning experience reading your work. --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wasn't that pleasant! Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comics written by Harvey Kurtzman, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Curly,

Just to say that this was a rash reaction that I soon wished to undo, but found that I'd lost my Internet connection. It's taken until yesterday to restore it, so my apologies for this belated apology.

Best wishes,
Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, no problem. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying you, as you participated in the peer review for the article:

I've nominated Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for Featured Article candidacy.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your helpful suggestions! I've responded, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1. Perhaps you could revisit your position there? — Cirt (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mind if I move your addressed comments to the talk page? — Cirt (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Cirt (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Gods' Man to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,326 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Bencherlite^Talk 10:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bencherlite: I'd rather hold off on Gods' Man and Wordless novel until, say, a half dozen or so wordless novel articles have been built up—there are quite a number of them, but they're all stubs. It would be disappointing to a reader to come across this whole medium, and then to click through and find nothing but stubs. I have a number of them on my mental "to do" list, and the sources to work them up, just not the time to devote to them. I'll think about one of my other FAs, but none of them really jump out—there are rumours that Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book may come back in print after nearly thirty years—I'd rather not tantalize readers with an unobtainable book; it's only been a month since Gertie the Dinosaur was TFA, so another McCay article is probably not a great idea. Maybe Maus? It'd be completely random, but at the same time I guess I can't think of a date it would be associated with. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Holocaust memorial day? (January 27) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose, but then that means Bencherlite goes nearly a year without any Turkey.
    I've actually got a couple of articles lined up for FAC that I was thinking of proposing, but it could be months yet for them to get through (my articles tend to take their time attracting reviewers). Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to stop by and thank you for the peer review comments, which helped to shed light on a few gaps as well as spawning a few sub-pages. Btw - if you upload that Suzuki Harunobu print will you let me know, or if I'm not around dump it in In a Station of the Metro? That was an interesting bit to uncover that I didn't know about before the peer review, and I particularly wanted to thank you for it. Congrats on the above too! Victoria (tk) 22:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria: Oh, I uploaded it the day you pointed it out to me (and a few others). It's at File:Suzuki Harunobu - Woman Admiring Plum Blossoms at Night.jpg. I've put it in its "logical" place, which ain't too pretty—I'll let you figure out what you want to do with it. Sorry I never got around to finishing reviewing the Pound article, but it looks like it didn't matter—congratulations on that shiny star! Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It's a lovely print. I'll have to sort that page out and it's fine where it's at right now. Victoria (tk) 00:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They had quite a few really nicely scanned ones. I'll have to find the time to download the rest of them. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The MET? Yes, I ended up starting Der Busant because of one of the tapestries there (needed an article to bring the scan to FPC). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoever they have doing the scanning knows their shit—zoom in on File:Suzuki Harunobu - Evening Snow on the Heater.jpg and see how nicely you can see the embossing. In every other image I found of File:Suzuki Harunobu - Woman Admiring Plum Blossoms at Night.jpg the embossing doesn't even show. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Impressive. Very, very, very impressive. That probably means the scanner is set so that the DOF is sufficiently large to get the embossing (but how to do so?). Scanners usually have a very narrow DOF, which is why scans of coins often end up terrible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, of course. Everyone knows that. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd hope so... (I probably should invest in a scanner... DYK images like this are still photographs?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		With thanks for being an important part of the team at Ezra Pound, especially at peer review, and for helping to make it happen. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you!—and congrats on the new FA! Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Me too. I should be revising my thesis, but I am much more tempted by Wikipedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was cleaning up my desk and came across a bunch of photocopies I made from a library book. I managed to retain just enough self-control not to go ahead with the other four books. Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I know how you feel. I'm dying to write an article on Roesia nu Goreng Patut (the basis for Karnadi Anemer Bangkong), but thesis comes first. Finish the revisions, get my MA, and then waste hours writing about a novel in a language spoken by few who would read the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Crisco 1492: So I guess you've got hours to waste now? Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, basically. Though I'm still waiting for my friend to finish translating Roesia nu Goreng Patut (I can't read Sundanese; I have an Indonesian-language summary, but the recent printing has a foreword by Ajip Rosidi which I want to use). I also got a photocopied copy of the novel Melati van Agam (1924) in the mail from Malaysia, so that's another article that needs writing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Southern Cross (wordless novel) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * ((cite web

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for improving the article. When do you think is a good time to have it featured on the main page? I was thinking that it should be on a day that is a memorial for the Holocaust, however I've found out that there are several days to memorialize it. See: Holocaust Memorial Days. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not really too worried about when (or if) it hits the main page. If there's a day you'd like to see it featured, go ahead and nominate it. For the record, I'm more concerned with the book's significance as comics than its significance to the Holocaust per se, so it makes no difference to me whether it runs on a Holocaust-related day, a completely random day, Spiegelman's birthday, or not at all. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The GA bot is temperamental at the moment, so if you haven't seen it... J Milburn (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! I was wondering how you stumbled across such an obscure article to make copyedits. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Vertigo (wordless novel) page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canadian comics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laurence Hyde (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Southern Cross (wordless novel) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Southern Cross (wordless novel) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Southern Cross (wordless novel) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the GA! I have nominated it for Did you know, which will hopefully result in the article appearing on the main page. The link is Template:Did you know nominations/Southern Cross (wordless novel). Thanks, Matty.007 14:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks! I didn't even think about DYK. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quirky articles make the best hooks... Thanks, Matty.007 11:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you recently reviewed the article, would you care to weigh in on this discussion? It concerns whether a particular review quote should be removed from an article. --John (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Suzuki Harunobu - Evening Snow on the Heater.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Passionate Journey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colas Breugnon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your great work bringing Goodman Beaver to FA status! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks a lot! Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Southern Cross (wordless novel), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the novel Southern Cross does not contain any words? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Southern Cross (wordless novel). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ! Drmies (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, not even punctuation. Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Goodman Beaver know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 9, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 9, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Goodman Beaver is a comics character created by American cartoonist Harvey Kurtzman. Goodman was a naïve and optimistic Candide-like character, oblivious to the corruption and degeneration around him. The stories were vehicles for biting social satire and pop culture parody. Except for the character's first appearance, which Kurtzman did alone, the stories were written by Kurtzman and drawn by Will Elder. Goodman first appeared in a story in Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book in 1959, but the best-remembered strips were the five stories produced by the Kurtzman–Elder team in 1961–62 for the Kurtzman-edited magazine Help! They tended to be in the parodic style Kurtzman had developed when he wrote and edited Mad in the 1950s, but with more pointed, adult-oriented satire and much more refined and detailed artwork on Elder's part, crammed with countless visual gags. The best-known of the Goodman Beaver stories was "Goodman Goes Playboy" (1962). A satire on the hedonistic lifestyle of Hugh Hefner using parodies of Archie comics characters, the story led to a lawsuit from Archie's publisher, although Hefner, the actual target of the strip, found it amusing. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this didn't make it through first time round....think we fixed everything we could or explianed why at the Peer Review, so at FAC again - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thopha saccata/archive2 - if you could take a look and compare to first time round that'd be great. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Curly Turkey: Your recent edit of Southern Cross (wordless novel) is explained

please don't remove double spaces between sentences; "amongst" is common in Canadian English

Language for writing encyclopedias is based on not just what is in ordinary use, but also on what style guides recommend. It is evident that the style guides of the four English-language largest circulating newspapers in Canada deprecate the use of "amongst". Here are the results of searches I performed just now:

• Toronto Star: among 58940; amongst 1941; ratio=30
• The Globe and Mail: among 127086; amongst 2220; ratio=57
• The Gazette (Montreal): among 2345; amongst 22; ratio=107
• The Vancouver Sun: among 6654; amongst 103; ratio=65

Most likely some of the search hits are within direct quotations, where the speaker's exact words would override the newspaper's style guide. Based on these results, I conclude that the four top Canadian newspapers call for writers to use among not amongst. In editing Wikipedia articles, I routinely make changes based on the standards of major style guides, sometimes inferred from overwhelming usage ratios in respected publications. This is what editors do. Sincerely, Anomalocaris (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Until the 1990s some of the same newspapers you cite spelled "colour" without a "u", so I wouldn't take them as reflecting Canadian spelling conventions. I grew up in Southern Ontario saying "amongst" and still do—I have yet to see anyone bat an eyelash over it. You're "fixing" something that was never broken, and your condescending lecturing tone makes your argument no more convincing. Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Curly Turkey: I wrote my previous message as a reply to your editing statement "'amongst' is common in Canadian English." There is nothing wrong with the word amongst. It's a perfectly good word. That doesn't mean it is the best choice for encyclopedic work. In Scotland nobody would bat an eyelash over bonnie wee lassie, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should use that phrase out of quotation to describe a pretty girl, and in fact every use of that phrase in Wikipedia is a quotation of a speaker, poem, or lyric. If you feel condescended or lectured to, that was not my intent. How else am I suppose to explain my perspective and my editing procedures? By the way, I just checked the next four largest English-language newspapers in Canada, and the pattern continues:

• Toronto Sun: among 46400; amongst 1190; ratio=39
• The Province (Vancouver): among 1799; amongst 31; ratio=58
• National Post: among over 500; amongst over 500; "among Canadians" 185; "amongst Canadians" 4; ratio=46
• Calgary Herald: among 3272; amongst 83; ratio=39

Moreover, Hansard Association of Canada's Style Guide (pdf) says on page 43:

among (no -st)

and, since you mentioned it, on page 47:

colour, but coloration

I conclude that the top eight Canadian English newspapers as well as Hansard all call for writers to use among not amongst. Again, amongst is a perfectly good word, but it is a word deprecated for professional writing by those who set the standard for professional writing in Canada. In the interest of civility and to avoid pointless reversions, since your reversion I have not edited and I do not plan to edit Southern Cross (wordless novel). Sincerely, Anomalocaris (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I "feel condescended or lectured to", it's because you invaded my talk page with your condescending "This is what editors do" lecture. For the record, every one of the papers you cite have used "amongst" within recent days—including up to yesterday—and the CBC apparently has no problem with it at all, even in article titles dated April 2014. So much for "deprecated". And if you think "colour" vs "coloration" has anything to do with what I was saying about 20th-century Canadian newspapers preferring "color", maybe you should do some research instead of harassing productive editors. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Goodman Beaver. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

precious again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Windsor McCay.

This user helped promote Windsor McCay to good article status.

.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the categories in his article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article says he lived in Chicago for a couple of years.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like I missed the boat by a couple days, but I just wanted to stop by to congratulate you on reaching the front page (again). :D That's always a nice accomplishment, no matter how many times you've done it. I don't think we've crossed paths since Mulberry Street failed to make FA. Me, I'm not worried about that one bit. I think the article's in really nice shape now, and I'm proud of the work we accomplished on it. Thank you again for working on it with me.

FYI: I've given up writing about Dr. Seuss, at least for now. I mean, I knew those library books would have to go back sooner or later. But I'm working on articles about E.B White's children's books now. He only wrote three of those -- which is a hell of a lot more manageable than the 40 or so Seuss wrote. :D

Anyhoo, have a good one! Bobnorwal (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob: Well, thanks for the kind words. The only White book I've read is Charlotte's Web, although I've got Stuart Little on the shelf with plans to read it to the offspring one of these days. Even if you're giving the Seuss books a break, I really think Mulberry Street is in good shape for an FA, if you wanted to renominate. If there are still sources outstanding, we could always ask for them at Resource Exchange—I could do it myself if you're not up to it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the GA review. Quick question: is Moriyama's book giving you a 404 error as well? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed. I don't think it's blocked---when they're blocked you just get redirected to the info page. Maybe it was deleted, but wasn't removed from the search index or something? If they're blocked where you are, you can use a VPN to get around the block pretty easily. I've used JustFreeVPN a few times before. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blast, and they don't have a hard copy in my university's library (mind you, almost nobody studies Sundanese literature at my university, so I didn't expect them to have it). Alright... guess I'll have to give this some time before PR-ing for FAC. Maybe I'll trawl Jstor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And that was ridiculously fast. Nothing for Joehana, and Yuhana gives nothing but Bible studies and... for some reason... something about traditional Japanese lit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yuhana" does sound like a typical Japanese word, though not one I'm familiar with. Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No luck at Project MUSE or Questia either. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Google gives this line from a poem by Kakinomoto no Hitomaro, "yuhana no sakayuru toki ni" (translated as "but just at the time of the flourishing blossoms" in this book)... perhaps that's what's being quoted. Oh well. (While we're at it, the ukiyo-e of the poet looks quite nice... shame it's from a thousand years after his death) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably wait a week or two to see if Moriyama's book becomes available again, then go to PR. It would be nice to have such a niche topic at FAC. Mind you, I don't think I do anything other than niche topics. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And, of course, a Japanese source which may or may not be useful. Which is on our blacklist, so I can't give it to you here. Blah and blah. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Dropbox. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this the same Moriyama? I've only skimmed it because I'm on my phone, but I only see Joehana mentioned in the bibliography, and then there's something about wawacan's influence (?) on 1920s Sundanese novels. I'll give it a closer look tomorrow. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like it. I'd be very surprised if there were two people with the same surname with a fixation on the same geotemporal location. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, by "the same Moriyama" I meant "the same Moriyama article". Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I skimmed through it again and I don't see Joehanna actually mentioned in the body. All I see is something about how the novel took over from the wawacan by about 1930 or so, and how these novels reflected new values and realities within traditional Sundanese culture or something. The one Joehana book is listed as a reference, but it's notclear to me how it's being referenced. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page 115 has one novel by Joehana mentioned. Mind you, it's probably best to just find the blasted Moriyama book. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right. In 1930 that book had an advertisement on the cover (?) That listed 57 books in Sundanese published by Dachlan-Bekti. Most of the books have never been found in libraries, and their authors and years of publication are unknown. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, in other words, useless for this article (but very telling for contemporary Sundanese literature, if I ever write an article). Sadly that's not too uncommon... I found an advertisement for a novel by Saeroen called Di Balik Pagar (or something similar) in Delpher's archive, but nothing on the web elsewhere. Also what appears to have been the fate of the novelization of Gagak Item (and the film itself). Three years of occupation, then another four of Revolution, then another 20+ of neglect, will do that to books and films (20 years of neglect: Indonesians have, historically, been terrible with keeping good documents... when Misbach wanted to establish Sinematek Indonesia, for instance, his friends called him crazy... it's better now, but what was lost can only rarely be "unlost").
          • Anywho, thanks for the help. I've asked my friend if she can hunt down a copy of the 1989 printing of Mugiri, and the foreword might offer some more information that can be used. Now to go back to polishing D. Djajakusuma for PR and FAC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Madman's Drum you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Madman's Drum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Madman's Drum for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Passionate Journey you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Passionate Journey you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Passionate Journey for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you email me, I'll send it across, but it's only actually the first page that mentions Passionate Journey; here's the same article, and here's the original article, showing the first page (which is the one with the mention). J Milburn (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Thanks a lot. I've added it now. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on the GA. Nominated for DYK here. I find these wordless novels really interesting, so thanks for bringing them to more attention. Best, Matty.007

I couldn't resist nominating Madman's Drum as well, here. Thanks, Matty.007 18:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks a lot! The last thing I ever expected was to see a rapidfire series on wordless novels on the mainpage! Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude, just a to remind you that I've got some questions about your suggestions regarding Megadeth's FA nomination. All the best.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 30 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Madman's Drum, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Madman's Drum was a novel in woodcuts? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Madman's Drum. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 May 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Passionate Journey, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Passionate Journey contains only pictures, and was named as Thomas Mann's favourite film—but is a novel? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Passionate Journey. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Curly Turkey/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the consensus subthread of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the flatlist question for Megadeth: any list is highly preferable (because of accessibility, higher value than aesthetics) to comma separator, even if the template documentation doesn't say so. If flatlist doesn't work well, perhaps try ((hlist))? (Example: BWV 172, for "instrumental") - Plainlist takes too much room for many short entries. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's what I think, but I'm not one of the main editors of the article, so ultimately it's not my decision. How does hlist differ from flatlist? The output looks the same to me. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something to hide? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've got a question for you, a ... departure ... from the normal stuff I work on, and the normal stuff we talk about. How would you feel about collaborating on Okuribito? I just finished watching it, and I'm not afraid to say that I cried more than for any film since the first 10 minutes of Up. It should be at least a GA, especially considering the international attention it's received (and the quality of the movie, IMHO), but I don't read Japanese, nor do I have access to Japanese sources. I'd handle English sources and help with French (my passive French is still somewhat up to par), and you could focus on Japanese sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're not in a rush, I'll see what I can do. A Google book search seems to turn up stuff about the book rather than the movie. I'm not really a film buff, though, so it might take me a while to figure out just where the appropriate sources would be—so far I've found some short news articles and a whole lotta blogs. Never heard of the movie (don't be surprised—it's been quite some time since I've seen a "grown-up" film!) but I'm hoping the fact that Shizuoka is sister cities with Cannes means there'll be decent paper sources on film in general in town somewhere. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I've tracked down some of Ghibli's work here (surprisingly difficult), and so far my wife and I have watched Totoro, Pom Poko, Mononoke hime, and Hotaru no haka; I think the last was my favourite, although all of them were quite enjoyable. Anywho, later (assuming I have time) I'll polish the plot section and try to hunt down some online sources. Paywall sources might require me to pull in a few favours, but doing so shouldn't be that difficult. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ghibli's not popular in Indonesia? I thought they'd penetrated everywhere since Disney got the distribution rights. The only movie that seems to matter at home these days is Frozen ... Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not as mainstream, I guess. Indonesians seem to prefer more recent stuff. And Doraemon. Doraemon remains popular, both in animated and comic form. As for Frozen... yeah, the kids still seem to only talk about it. They didn't react this strongly to Tangled! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Doraemon! I'd be surprised if that ever made it into English, even given the J-Pop boom. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Spoke too soon! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Fudgy pudgy pie"!?! Kill me now. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I believe the common internet term is Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu*****. Why, though? Why change the character names? Indonesia doesn't (they add a T to Gian, but that's it), and it doesn't look like India does (I somehow ended up with a Hindi copy of the Doraemon and Pirates vs time-travelling gene splicers film). Why English? And... fudgy pudgy pie? Really?
            • Anyways, my wife was saying that Doraemon got to be so popular that there were Doraemon noodles, and most bakeries began stocking dorayaki. We can still get dorayaki, but it's become more difficult. — Crisco 1492 (talk)
              • I'm Sure they did some market research into it, but I still can't wrap my head around how they could change something easy like "Nobita" to (still foreign-sounding) "Noby", but they left "Doraemon" as is. I wonder how a typical monolingual Anglophone even pronounces that... And imagine the surprise some American kid will get if they get their hands on a Fudgy Pudgie Pie™...and then find their mouth full of beans! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • C'est la vie, I guess. So long as they don't try and capitalise on Naruto and change Shizuka to Sakura or something. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely happy with my description of A Contract with God - if you can improve it, please do. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe this is better? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, well-regarded Curly Turkey! Tintin in Tibet is now GA, after weeks of rollicking fun reviewing it. I would be honoured to receive your review, in the form of comments or edits. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Prhartcom: I'm happy to look at at, but I'm actually a bit busy for the next week or so, so it may take me until early June to take a look at it. If I haven't stopped in by then, gimme a tap on the shoulder. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) If RL is keeping you busy, don't worry about forcing "Departures" on yourself just yet. I'll do what I can with the English sources. I've ordered the Region 1 DVD as well, which should let me use the interview. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do have a tendency to put off the schoolwork I have to do for WP stuff. It'll all depend on my willpower, but I really do have a number important things to get out of the way by the end of May. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, I think my answer should be obvious... RL first. I'll polish up what I can. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I know that real life comes first, as does every crack addict ... I can promise you, if it weren't Departures it'd be something else ... Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC) (In other words, I'm not sitting here thinking, "Oh! Those Departures reviews for Crisco!"—I'm thinking, "Hey, I wonder what's happened at Wikipedia in the last ten minutes ..." Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • (talk page stalker) I can relate; if it's any consolation: I am presently also in an education mode in RL with a comically close May 31 culmination date. Good luck. Prhartcom (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • • Best of luck to the both of you. I should probably be preparing for my doctoral thesis (a history of film adaptation in Indonesia isn't gonna write itself, you know) but the temptation... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Like, say, Ukiyo-e? (Speaking of which, I'm thinking the actor print we discussed might be worth an article... even if it's only known for being expensive). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not so sure. It's easy enough to find background info on the prints (what actor in what scene of what play), but I think a list article would be more appropriate, for Sharaku's œuvre (it's small enough and well-catalogued). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever heard of Featured Lists? (says the male temptress... tempter?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • • Yeah. I think it's doable (I've got the sources) but I'm not sure I'd prioritize it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dude! Congrats! "This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale." You're the main contributor. Take a virtual bow!   : )   With regards to a good colleague, Tenebrae (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• << bows ever so virtually >> Merci bien for the kind words and the helpful input! One of these days I'll get around to fixing up the Eisner article, too. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Prelude to a Million Years you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seattle -- Seattle (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Prelude to a Million Years you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Prelude to a Million Years for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seattle -- Seattle (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Corbett—the kind of guy who threatens to oppose an FAC over another reviewer's "attitude". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Smiling. Prhartcom (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Holy horseshit! Does he think I'm the nominator or something? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to self: avoid language like this, as it is considered "abuse"; best to fall back on this kind of thing instead. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Prelude to a Million Years you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Prelude to a Million Years for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seattle -- Seattle (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Curly Turkey, thanks for your comments and support! Would you mind if I moved your extended commentary to the FAC's talk page? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fire away! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a stub. There's probably a bit I can work on with Indonesian and English sources, but not too much. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if it's been released in Indonesia? I read that it was criticized, but it wasn't clear if it was an Indonesian release that was criticized or if it was just the general idea of the film that caught flak. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Indonesian Wikipedia claims it had an Indonesian distributor, and that they worked with Rapi Films, so there may have been. This was, of course, five years before I arrived in the country. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you access this? It should be on page 418. Need a good source for the cast and crew. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not needed; I found a Kinema Junpo page with most of the data that would have been in there. Mind, if you want a DYK credit, you can add some more to the article and then add yourself to the nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! You fleshed that out right quick! I'm not blocked from the book, but it says I've met my reading limit(?). This appears to be a RS, and has a list of credits. Do you want me to just throw it in as a list? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the infobox you've got hte release date as 12 May 2001 (Indonesia), even though you've got that date for Japan in the body. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, the Kinema Junpo page has much more cast and crew information. I just limited it. Good catch with the infobox. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't my Mum ever tell me? Even people in England know it! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Whatever the rights and wrongs, please don't personalise things. --John (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Excuse me? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, if you don't mind, raise questions like this without focusing on the individual you are having a dispute with. It isn't helpful, in my opinion. --John (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John: So I'm not allowed to name the other party? I'm not being facetious here—I don't see anything in what you've linked to that I can interperet as "personalizing". All it says is "Can someone please do something about Eric Corbett editwarring over ENGVAR issues at Megadeth?" Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking as an admin here, I'm just saying. The personalization is in calling him out by name. It might have been better to say "What do folks think about this issue?" Just saying. Least said, soonest mended, as we say. --John (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John: Durned if you do, durned if you don't, as "us Americans" say. I named Eric and linked to his name (so he'd be pinged) so he couldn't accuse me of doing things behind his back (meanwhile it looks like Eric is talking about me behind my back. It seems fourteen FAs is "nowhere", which apparently "tells its own story".) Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:EdTheHappyClown1stEditionPekarIntroPanel10.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed it from the article as gratuitous; let it be deleted. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:MikePloogFrankenstein02Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:YummyFurMoviePosterUnmade.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same story. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of A Contract with God to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon (either on a particular date or on any available date), please nominate it at the requests page. If you'd like to see an FA appear on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with about 1,307 articles waiting their turn at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Bencherlite^Talk 18:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Departures (film) page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Teamwork Barnstar

I wasn't sure whether to award you with this or the copyedtor barnstar, but since your input in Megadeth's FAC has also been really constructive, I'll go with this one. Thanks for all the edits (and time spent) on the topic, and I hope we'll get this to FA some day. One thing I've learnt from you for sure is that the prose in good articles has to be as clearest as possible (previously I though that it should be written in a "sophisticated" way). Good luck with your nominations and if I can help you somehow, don't hesitate to call me. Everything the best. Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, thanks a lot, Vic! The article still needs work, but it's well on its way. We'll get it there. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have a quick look at Pride and verify I didn't screw up any translations too badly? Shouldn't be any issues, but it's best to check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm on my phone right now, so I can't be too thorough, but one thing jumped out: Nihon o dame ni shita shuppatsu-ten can't possibly be right. Most likely it's "日本をダメにした出発点", but there are different ways of writing it (with the same meaning). If you don't have the quote in the original, you shouldn't simply transliterate. Just leave it in Roman characters. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 14:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I disagree with you. This is supposed to be the official website of the Yokohama Film Festival? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And, just to confirm: these two flyers support this (bottom of the screen)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two PDFs were the front and back of the same flyer, but yes they did support it. The ugly website below is probably better anyways. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Scratch that, this lovely pink and green thing does. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't you miss 1997? I remember lovingly installing Netscape Navigator 3 that Christmas ... but seriously, Japanese websites make me want to rip out what little is left of my hair. I wanted to copy & paste my company's mailing address into a document from their brand-spanking-new-for-2011 website, only to find out the address was a GIF. Unstylized, just a fucking text address as a GIF, so I could highlight it. And because it's a GIF, it doesn't scale, and thus looks blurry on my wonking huge 12" display. A sign of why the economy of the country has been tanking for the last two decades? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1997... hmmm... no, I don't miss it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Plofile — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Élan d'Or Award from the All Nippon Producers Association [ja] for film and TV. Okuribito won its Film Department award. TV Taro was a TV Guide-alike that apperently stopped publishing this year. Did the magazine sponsor the Film Department award? I'd just skip the TV Taro bit and say Okuribito won the Élan d'Or Award for Best Film in 2009. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's called the "作品賞TV　Taro賞" (source). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, it's the TV Taro Award for Best Film. "作品賞" just means "award for a work" rather than an actor or producer—it's not part of the award name, it's just a subsection title. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Meaning, it's the Élan d'Or TV Taro Award for Best Film. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks. I've solved our Rooster problem, btw. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! You're one of very few people writing in a European language to correctly describe this filmstrip as "printed". If you're still interested then, in about a week or two I intend to "publish" a research note on "Japanese color animation before 1940" on my website, which will also cover "Katsudô shashin" on the basis of Mr Matsumoto's publications and further information by him. One correction: With 50 frames at 16 frames/second, the film's length is nearer to 3 seconds than to 4. F. S. Litten at http://litten.de/engl.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:63:B3C:9225:E052:308E:ABDC:3B50 (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I did notice a number of English-language sources that claimed the frames were hand-drawn. I have to wonder where they got that—I can't imagine a translation bad enough that would imply that. Of course, that leaves the mystery of why stencils were used in the first place—seems like a pointless extra step. Are the Matsumoto publications you have print sources? Could you tell me what they are? I may be able to track them down at the library. I've had no luck finding stuff online (although there's a lot of stuff by or concerning Matsumoto). I think the "four seconds" was likely based on the length of the video. I've fixed it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a look at 松本夏樹; 津堅信之: 国産最古と考えられるアニメーションフィルムの発見について. In: 映像学, no. 76, 2006, pp. 86-105. And: 松本夏樹: 映画渡来前後の家庭用映像機器 幻燈・アニメーション・玩具映画. In: 岩本憲児 (ed.): 日本映画の誕生. Tokyo: Shinwasha, 2011, pp. 95-128. However, by now there is more information which has not been published yet. Some of it will be found in my research note, as well as the likely German background to "Katsudô shashin". As to the use of stencils, you will understand when you read my note (or Matsumoto[2011]). And, by the way, there were 11 loop films in all found at the time. F. S. Litten — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:63:B3C:9225:25D9:AFA4:CD1F:3C15 (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I misread "１０本とともに". They've got two copies of 「日本映画の誕生」 in the city library system, so I'll grab one. Thanks for that, and I'm looking forward to your note—is it for something that will be published? I'm not sure I'll be able to use the note as a source otherwise, which would be a real shame. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • (talk page stalker) - No, I don't think that we could, although it would still be interesting reading. Curly, looks like we should hold on for GAC just yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've already put it up for GAN. I'm grabbing the book tonight. It's unlikely anyone will review the article before I update it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The note will not be published elsewhere, at least not on my initiative. However, two earlier notes (nipper.pdf, ani1917.pdf) like it have already been used on Wikipedia pages (Anime before 1917, Imokawa Mukuzô Genkanban no Maki, etc.), even before one of them was translated and published in Japanese as an "invited research note" in "The Japanese Journal of Animation Studies". (Both notes were also covered in articles in the Mainichi Shinbun, shortly after being up on my website.) You will see that I give sources for (I hope) all claims, and some very nice illustrations. But I've seen enough of Wikipedia (especially the English one) not to get involved in the question of which sources you can use there, or not. I, for one, will even refer to an article in the Japanese Wikipedia in my note. I'll enter the link here, when it's up. F. S. Litten — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:63:B3C:9225:449E:39CC:B8C6:CD36 (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you very much. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, if nothing else, I may be able to track down the sources you cite and use them as sources. Either way, I'm looking forward to reading it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've expanded the article a bit with info from 「日本映画の誕生」. I'll get around to adding a (one-paragraph?) prehistory about magic lanterns and toy films when I've digested it first (I don't know anything about this stuff, so I want to make sure I understand it first). It could probably use a (one-paragraph?) post-history as well to put it better in context. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good approach, especially when we've got so little information on the film itself. When I wrote articles like Njai Dasima, that's the approach I took. (BTW, I'l do the GA review if you want). Crisco36.73.92.81 (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, just hold off until I get the Plot section to two paragraphs, like Njai Dasima. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • For a 3 second film? Good luck! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to deal with the narrative's multilayered symbolism. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • And, naturally, the importance of each color in Japan's cultural paradigm. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Each frame has its own context that requires analysis—thus I'm developing fifty subsections. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Excellent. Finally the Manhattan Project will have an article ready to dethrone it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Very perspicacious. You'll see from Mr Litten's paper that the Manhattan Project was but a footnote in the develoment of Katsudō Shashin. Finally you'll see why the film was "lost" for a century, and the significance of its rediscovery for the denizens of the 21st century. Obvious, of course, when you realize the esteemed academician is studying Japan from Germany. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I see a future, based on Katsudō Shashin, in which all men and women worldwide wear sailor outfits and carry boxes of chalk. There is no war, for all are busy writing their hopes and dreams on chalkboards. Kanji has become the standard writing system throughout the world. And all is well. (On a more serious note, Dr. Litten appears to have done some excellent work on China as well. Google Scholar shows several articles which have been cited more than once; one has been cited twenty times so far) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • His list of publications sure looked impressive when I went through them. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Agree. If he publishes his research note on his website, I think we'd be able to reference it per WP:SPS (as a recognized expert in the field). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Those Mainichi Shinbun articles and The Japanese Journal of Animation Studies publication would be perfect to affirm this, if we could find copies. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The main page. They have archives, but TOC only. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Well, it'll sure be helpful if we can use it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Well, we should prepare the argument now, like I did with Streatham portrait. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                            • I don't think it'll be hard to prove his credentials. The challenge, I think, will be presenting a "note" as a source. Will it be considered "published" at all? Unpublished works even by field experts, I thought, were not accepted. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Open access on his personal website feels like "published" to me, as I doubt he'd go that far with something he didn't consider ready. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• To get back to the Katsudô shashin article: Imokawa Mukuzo Genkanban no Maki wasn't the first anime, it came out only in April 1917, as a certain steamed academic (the heat!) noted in a note last July, see the Wikipedia entry (which was not written by me!). And Namakuragatana alias Hanawa Hekonai etc. came out in 1917. Two typos: specualted and Matusmoto. The Mainichi articles don't seem to be online any longer, but if you go to Mr Matsumoto's website (wunderkabinet.org), push the button, and look under "media" you'll find them at the top. (I don't think, however, that the new note will also feature in a Japanese paper; there's nothing really "sensational" in it.) The Japanese Journal of Animation Studies is planning to put its content online, but they are not there yet. If you send me an e-mail, I'll send you a pdf: it is just a translation of a slightly earlier version than the one now on my website. F. S. Litten — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:63:B3C:92E5:98A1:A1EC:CAC5:CA80 (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again—I've corrected the typos and sent you off a mail (it should be labelled as coming from "Flakey Foont"—a Robert Crumb character—though I don't recall registering that name). As for the dates, I'll wait until I've got the sources to fix them, as that information contradicts what the current sources in the article say. A question: you transliterate なまくら刀 as "Namakuragatana" (as one would expect), but the Japanese article makes a point of pronouncing it（-かたな）. Do you know anything about this? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, it's online at http://litten.de/fulltext/color.pdf. And you should recognize one non-Japanese picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:63:B3C:92D9:956F:31FD:8B00:67B9 (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the link and the interesting read (we could have a paper film article...). Now I've become curious as to whether there has ever been any interest in animated films in Indonesia (the country my research is focused on). Comics, particularly Si Buta dari Gua Hantu (Ganes TH; 1960s), did gain some popularity (although now the market is dominated by Japanese manga), but the only full-length animated Indonesian film I'm aware of is Meraih Mimpi (2008). Shame the subject hasn't been researched very much, AFAIk. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Scratch that, Meraih Mimpi was "coproduced" with (read: work mostly done in) Singapore. Homeland in 2003 was animated, apparently. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ha! I do believe I uploaded that Little Nemo frame (in fact, I think I did the frameshot, from the Masterworks DVD). Do I get a credit? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia get's all the credit. Re Indonesia and animation: I don't know. Animation history is such a vast field, and many parts are badly covered.
        • Sigh... wish it weren't so... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't worry, Crisco. Someday our handles will be on the lips of the public everywhere! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I've been a bold little Turkey and added the note to the sources. I'm still trying to get my head around the magic lantern stuff in such a way as to sum it up in a sentence or two—then I think I'm more or less done except for tweaking. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being declared an FA does not mean articles cannot be edited or improved. Lumping all the sections, including those dealing with his Early life, his career, and his personal life, under the vague title "Personal history" is lousy organization. That heading is not needed, as it serves no explanatory purpose. Nightscream (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Katsudō Shashin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zanimum -- Zanimum (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CT, need some help. I'd like to use this image but never uploaded because I can't read the description, source, etc. Can you tell what is said about it? Thanks. Victoria (tk) 20:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded it. It's a Momoyama-period piece by Kanō Takanobu (if you can read French, fr.wp has a page on him). There's another, larger file of it here—not quite as bright, though. This page suggests the image is only a portion, but none of the other pages say so. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely fantastic! Thanks so much. It will make a few people happy to see the current lead pic swapped out. Victoria (tk) 21:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this one by Tosa Mitsuoki? The Japanese article uses a bad crop of it for their lead image. I'm just thinking that opening with an image that's all negative space at the top is perhaps less than ideal—especially on smaller screens. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm using that in the article and it faces the wrong way for the lead. Huge discussion on the talk page and in archives, a few years old. I agree about the negative space, but there was some concern that the lead image being used was wrong. Well that's an oversimplication. Anyway, I came across this while digging for something entirely different in a sandbox, and decided to give it try. It can be swapped out again, but my feeling is that if it makes people happy to see a 10th century Heian depiction, then I suppose it's okay. Victoria (tk) 21:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! I'm not going to wade through that—other than to say I don't like the Harunobu. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes is right! And would have been avoided if the Takanobu had been uploaded at the beginning. I couldn't because of the language barrier, so again, thanks. It's growing on me, the dark space, the hint of moon, very Murasaki. Victoria (tk) 23:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an image unto itself, yeah, it's nice, I was just worried about its positioning. If I think of it, next time I'm in the library I'll see if I can find some scanworthy images. Surely there are mountains worth out there ... Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are. I think that's part of the problem. The challenge was to get the "earliest" but the really early ones have that falling roof style (or looking through the roof style) and individual figures are hard to make out. Thanks, though. Appreciate the offer.Victoria (tk) 23:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What about cropping some of those "falling roof" images to focus on the individual? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like they tried that, but they looked like crap. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Once I get home I can give it a go, if you'll just point me to a print worth cropping. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've found the perfect image. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, it's great, but I don't think Daigo Kobayashi wrote Genji. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Arrgh ... totally blows the punchline when you fudge the link. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, sure. I'll work that in. Let me just check precedent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Tsutaya's website (here) gives a March 2009 date for them renting the DVD (which I doubt would be that far from the actual release date). No BlueRay? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There's definitely a BluRay, but I wouldn't trust Amazon's release dates. It says 2011, which is credible, but I find Amazon's dates are far too often way wrong. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This search gives the DVD, streaming, rental of the DVD (Amazon does rentals?), and the script. :-s — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fuck? I could've sworn ... now I can find absolutely nothing. I remember coming across a blog or something that said something about a DVD/BluRay package, but now I see nothing at all. That surely can't be possible! How can this of all movies be lacking a BluRay? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • As of 2011 there was still no announcement for a Japanese BluRay, and the overseas one was Region B and couldn't be played on Japanese players. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Curses, foiled again! I think push comes to shove we can just cite WorldCat. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I think I totally got it wrong—I don't think there actually is a Japanese BluRay of it, astounding as that sounds. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits at Little Sammy Sneeze were very helpful, but please watch for Unicode characters because they were broken by the edits. Whatever is used to edit wikitext needs to be told that the text is UTF-8. I believe I fixed the problems, but you may want to check any other articles you have edited with the same procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no idea what happened there—some of those endashes I hadn't actually touched, so I don't know why they would have saved like that. Please don't remove the double spaces between sentences, by the way. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't know what caused it, but it appears to be working fine now. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		Valued Picture Barnstar
		Thank you for uploading the Murasaki Shikibu portrait by Kanō Takanobu. Oda Mari (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you right back! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics about the nature of Template: Comic book publishers in North America. As the creator of the template, I thought you might have some valuable input.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Comics and Sequential Art may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Along with Scott McCloud's ''Understanding Comics]]'' (1993), ''Comics and Sequential Art'' is considered to form the foundations for formal [[comics

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God, an actual book has quoted the words I wrote for the Comics article. Aren't scholars supposed to avoid using Wikipedia? Does this mean I now get to cite myself? Can I use this book to ref the Comics article? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would totally be all over that citing yourself thing. Now you can put yourself in the article's bibliography. Prhartcom (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe?? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* ((cite |last = Turkey |first = Curly |url = http://xkcd.com/978/))

From the excerpt I read, I believe they meant it either one of two senses. This kinda thing where it's Sim City 2000 style artwork, in that everything is the same scale no matter the distance, or the 三部 deal like this, where the background, midground and foreground act as independent layers that don't truely interact with each other. When they talk about Western perspective, yeah, I think they refer to a mix of isometric projection with a vanishing point, and the effects of lighting seen in chiaroscuro, where shading and tone are manipulated to create a sense of every decreasing distance. I can take a look a little later, but you had the context of the entire text! --Prosperosity (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that Taiwanese link you put on my page is dead!

MOS:JA suggests we shouldn't :ja: link pages, as if they are important enough they'll have an English Wiki page anyway.

They're linked using ((ill)), which automagically becomes an en.wp link when an en.wp article is created. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put the gloss "sepentine posture" with the kanji and romaji as it's a concept (which should be spelt "serpentine posture", by the way).

I have a little bit of an issue that "beauties" is talked about earlier in the article than where it is defined in the Themes and genres section. Is it possible to fix that?

Hmm ... I don't disagree, but I don't immediately see a solution. Let me think about it more. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The flow is a little strange in places. I'll try rewording it a little and see if you prefer my suggestions! --Prosperosity (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There, what do you think of it like that?.

Your interpretation of 平行遠近法 is in line with mine: that boxes, tables and buildings are depicted in an isometric style, but the entire composition isn't entirely isometric (and these isometric systems may be independent of each other). But I'd like to see the pdf you mentioned! --11:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The article Katsudō Shashin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Katsudō Shashin for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zanimum -- Zanimum (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So are you ready for a new shortest FA ever? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth a shot—with any luck such a short article'd get quickly reviewed, unlike my typical nom which sits there for a month and a half. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • How long was Mosquito up? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That one wasn't so bad---three weeks & two days. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then I guess length does have an effect. Having a detailed PR usually helps too (if the people who PR come back to the FAC). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good save on the Will Eisner book. Got anything for another one of his books, as that one is in some pretty bad shape and may also face the firing squad before long? BOZ (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure there's a review in The Comics Journal or Wizard or something, but I don't have anything. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Split infinitive. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not one, but two warnings, and after the issue had already been reported and dealt with? Did you even bother reading the diffs you posted? We're taking about a POV-pushing editor repeatedly adding OR and deleting sourced material, and refusing to leave edit comments in response to the rationales for reverting---this ain't no mere "content dispute", as should be obvious. Should be obvious. Why isn't it? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reported for edit warring at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Der Grammarkönnig and User:Curly Turkey reported by User:Robert McClenon (Result: ). You may wish to respond there. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Blind Leading the Blind, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Lang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A wanted to ask some questions regarding WikiRedactor's comments. Is it appropriate to shorten United States to US in the infobox and is it alright to omit "studio albums" as a sub-heading in the discography section. Also left a response at the FAC on your comments. Farewell.--Retrohead (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Both "United States" and "U.S." (or "US") are correct and unambiguous, so you can go with whichever you like (I'm the type that likes to spell things out, but that's a personal preference).
• MOS:MUSIC says "Pages on artists, groups or works should have recording and discography sections as appropriate. These should be subdivided into albums and singles, audio and video recordings, or other simple systems as required." I suppose this could be interpreted as not needing the "Studio albums" header, but it certainly doesn't say there shouldn't be one. Again, I think it's a choice. I'm not sure I agree that there should only be studio albums, though. That would mean dropping Kick Out The Jams and Alive! from the MC5's and Kiss's discographies, which is obviously totally unacceptable. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you make a suggestion on how to handle the LA Times review (the last not addressed comment of yours)? The review was pointed because Mustaine commented on the diversity of the songs on the 1997 album. That is not connected with the album's mixed reviews, but I'm opened for correcting any existing issue.--Retrohead (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Retrohead: Okay, I've dropped the LA Times from the sentence and reworked it. It's clear from the next sentence that it's not just the opinion of the LA Times.

You should really go through the sources, though, to make sure you're not using any more Primary Sources in a BLP-violating way. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent most of the last two weeks up to my neck of legal and financial paperwork, so I'm still in a mindset of prove it with paperwork rather than an abstract mindset. I gotta (re)learn to think before I act to help avoid these types of situations. I struck my comment, and solve the challenge I made myself by giving a counter example. Sorry for my rash behavior, I'll try to rein it in next time I post here. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, whatever. I just hope you understand that I'm not opposed to the proposal, but to the rationale, and the rush of supporters who clearly didn't even bother to read the rationale. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Katsudō Shashin, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the early animated film Katsudō Shashin (frame pictured) lasts just three seconds? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Katsudō Shashin. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I nominate the Three Beauties as a DYK for you, or you wan't to do that yourself? Hafspajen (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be bothered with DYK these days, so you can do it---buy I insist the hook be: "Japanese pornographer Utamaro made an woodblock print of the busts of three famous women". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that in that case we need to drop it. The word pornographer - that would never work, so many scandals as there were lately at DYK. And in my oppinion, he was not a pornographer either. He made shunga, yes, but that was not pornography but erotic woodprints. Hafspajen (talk) 10:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're no fun! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "that was not pornography but erotic woodprints." Hafs, can I get you to argue that point to my wife? She'd probably think Blue Lagoon was pornography. (BTW, nice to have our really old anime at DYK) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can. Pornography is crap, made by uninspired idiots for the sole idea to show - the meat to those who drool for this kind of thing (and think bad about it). Erotic is different, that is the aesthetics of sexual desire, sensuality and romantic love and depicting that is artwork. There is NOTHING WRONG with the human body, God had made that to his likeness, everbody. There is NOTHING WRONG making love either, God invented that to. Have fun. Hafspajen (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: What Blue Lagoon ? This Blue Lagoon (geothermal spa)? Been there, gorgious! - and not at all pornographic. Very decent. Hafspajen (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I take it y'all don't get much Brooke Shields out there. It's a film (well, actually, a novel, but I was referring to the film). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that one.. Yes it was in the movies, but I never bothered. It was probably my Hitchcock period... Hafspajen (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A lot of effort has been expended, especially in the West, to elevate shunga to the level of High Art, and downplaying the original function of these pictures which, as Timon Screech has emphasized, was to jerk off too—most of the original collectors, Screech points out, were embarassed and made excuses when caught with this stuff, calling into question just how much more open the Japanese were to this stuff. It appears the Edo-period Japanese were much more forgiving of this stuff, as it wasn't branded with the label of SIN THAT WILL SEND YOU TO HELL, but it was hardly something people thought nothing of.
  As for the difference between pron and erotica, I feel it's the same as the High Art/Low Art distinction. I do feel there's a distinction, but it's one that's not in the least clear cut—it's mostly grey area, with certain examples clearly on one side of the field or the other, but where "this field" ends and "the other field" begins is likely an unsolvable question. From what I can tell, though, Utamaro was definitely seen as a pornographer in his time, even when depicting women fully-dressed—just remember what these women did for a living, and that these images were in part advertisements for their services.
  Now excuse me, I'm off to "fix" Utamaro's article by "copyediting" the lead sentence to "Kitagawa Utamaro (Japanese: 喜多川 歌麿; c. 1753 – 31 October 1806) was the most popular pornographer in Japan in the 1790s, especially noted for depicting big busts of famous women." Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps its because, at least until the 1990s or 2000s, stating that you had a research interest in pornography was probably one of the surest and fastest ways to guarantee you'd never get tenure. I personally think the concept of Pornotopia is an interesting one, and it explains why fetishes are successfully manifested in pornography when they would not (or could not) be manifested in real life. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT big busts ? Japanese don't have big busts. Hafspajen (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't be mean! I know a few old men with quite large busts. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, he's right. Utamaro would have never connected himself with big busts. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRR, what a terrible article. Bust (sculpture).. YYuuk. Hafspajen (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that it is. Absolutely horrifying. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought I'd clicked through to Commons. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was it.... Come now, let's remove three each. I already removed all that was NOT a bust, like the ones with hands and heads only. Hafspajen (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey, look at this: Hostas are edible by humans and are called "urui" in Japanese cuisine.^[1] The parts eaten and the manner of preparation differ depending on the species; in some cases it is the shoots, others the leaf petiole, others the whole leaf. Younger parts are generally preferred as being more tender than older parts. The flowers are also edible.^{[citation needed]}

What do you say? Hafspajen (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I understand the question. Have I heard of it? No, and neither has my wife, but we're not gourmets. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you living in Japan or are you Japanese? You seems to be interested in Japanese subjects. Hafspajen (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a white anglo-Canadian, and I've lived in Japan since 1998. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Then you are the right person to answer the Cairn Terrier issue. first-level administrative country subdivisions. Is the Cairn Terrier the symbol of Ehime Prefecture? ^{(Are you discriminated by the way? Called long -nose ant stuff?)} Hafspajen (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books turns up zero hits, and Google only gets hits for, say, dogbreeding in Ehime. The Japanese Wiki article doesn't mention Ehime at all. The Japanese article for Ehime says the prefectural animal is the Japanese river otter, and doesn't mention dogs at all.

I won't say I've never been discriminated against, but it's not an active kind of discrimination. I have been denied jobs before because I'm not Japanese. One place gave me a language test, abstract thinking test, and personality test in order to try to disqualify me—I passed them with flying colours, so the guy told me straight up that, while I was qualified, they weren't comfortable putting a foreigner in front of the customers. Other than that, I haven't suffered any real "horror stories", and my children (aside from been shy) don't seem to have any issues fitting in. It may be that 21st-century Shizuoka is particularly welcoming to foreigners—all the bad stories I've heard have been either from other parts of Japan, or from before I got here. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's good - must be very interesting for you living there. Are you eating and dressing like the Japaneses nowadays? I change that terrier to an otter. Hafspajen (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a little gallery -war -is going on at Hirosige. Hafspajen (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just leave it. I'm planning on tackling Hiroshige one of these days, and I hope to put smaller, more in-context galleries throughout the article when I do. I think I'm the one who put in those ((multiple image))s in the first place—if I were to do it today, I'd shove all four images into a single gallery. That way, the images can be bigger without worrying about squeezing out the text or having images bump into each other. Just leave it for now, and we can rearrange it some other time. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that the artwork gallery squeezed or not squeezed is quite ok, considering that this Hirosige was an enormously productive artist. It is really just small amount of what Hirosige ever produced... But I think that some of the big single pictures could be made into one-row galleries. They could be made in such way that they are illustrating the text - with several pictures. Hirosige was an amazing artist, one single page is almost not enough to tell everything about it. Hafspajen (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're trying to say, but at the same time

1. the page is supposed to be an overview
2. there are at least five articles on Hiroshige's works so far: Eight Views of Ōmi, The Fifty-three Stations of the Tōkaidō, The Sixty-nine Stations of the Kiso Kaidō, One Hundred Famous Views of Edo, and Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji (Hiroshige), which are more appropriate places for a lot of these images.::#there could easily be more (look at the redlinks, and look how easily I turned up sources for that Utamaro print)
3. Commons is a more appropriate place for expansive galleries

Part of the problem is that the article itself is woefully underdeveloped. Seriously, I could walk over to the library right now—er, might not right now, because they haven't opened yet—what was my point? Oh, right: I could pop over to the library and pick up a dozen books to greatly expand the Hiroshige article with, just to start. I won't be doing that any time soon (I'm actually trying to cut back on editing so I can study), but when the article is properly expanded there will be lots of room for in-context galleries interspersed with the text—I imagine a lot more images than we have now. The galleries we have now are just too random and have too little context. Fine while the article's so skimpy, but it'll be so much better if the images are more thoughtfully arranged.

I do strongly recommend against "perrow", though, unless there's a semantic reason for it. If the images are limited to, say, three or five, imagine how much whitespace there'll be on a 24" monitor, or how the images will be pushed offscreen on a smartphone. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never should have created that Three Beauties of the Present Day article. I just got back from the library, and I can see that I could easily do dozens of these things, just for Utamaro, never mind the other artists.

Didn't they redefine the whole "no paid editing thing" recently to clarify it was only paid advocacy that was prohibited? I'd love to convince a library or government office to pay me a salary (enough to support three kids and a mortgage on) to sit in the library all day, writing articles—ukiyo-e, or local history, or whatever. I suppose that's my little geek Pornotopia right there. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You're not the only one. If I could earn a regular income writing on Indonesian literature and cinema, without doing any advocacy, I would. Happily. Without even charging for FAs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Three Beauties of the Present Day may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ((Nihongo|'''''Three Beauties of the Present Day'''''|当時三美人|Tōji San Bijin)) or (((Nihongo|'''''Three Beauties of the Kansei Era'''''|寛政三美人|Kansei San Bijin)) is a ''[[nishiki-e]]''
• [[Japanese era name|traditional Japanese era divisions]]((sfn|Nihon Ukiyo-e Kyōkai|1980|p=96)) (((circa|1792–93).((sfn|Nichigai Associates|1993|p=210)) The original printing had a the title

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing, Turkey-Murkey? BracketBot (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dealing with perpetual insomnia. It has me thinking I can converse with a bot. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can you do a grammar check on the image descriptions in Megadeth? Nikkimaria pointed at the FAC that some of them could use copy editing, but wasn't precise which ones.--Retrohead (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think she was talking about "disapprove" where "disapprove of" would be correct. I've fixed it. The others look fine. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of animals representing first-level administrative country subdivisions more weird, the Aichi prefecture has Great Dane, ? according to article, also Hyōgo prefecture has Great Dane, ? ... Kumamoto prefecture - Pug, and intensly weird - Tochigi prefecture has Puli? how on earth, the Puli is Hungary's national symbol. Hiroshima prefecture ... has Basilosaurus. And Fukuoka prefecture has Appaloosa horse, that is an American horse. These look like jokes to me. Hafspajen (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was some confused editor who added that one. Removed. Hafspajen (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confused? Basilosaurus? That's vandalism to me. Every prefecture (I think) has an official bird and/or animal, flower, and tree, as far as I know. That list could easily be expanded.

Take a look at what I did with the Tōkaidō images in Hiroshige. That's basically the kind of thing I'd like to do throughout, but not until after the text has been expanded. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOOKS very GOOD. Hafspajen (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It'll look a lot better when th earticle finally gets properly expanded. Now it looks a little too image-heavy. We should probably leave fucking around with it until it does get expanded, though. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the Three Beauties of the Present Day, anyway. Hafspajen (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It happened like this. [2] You don't wan't the FP in the lead? Hafspajen (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would, but since the article discusses the differences between different printings and the FP was captioned with an explanation of the differences, I think it's better to go with the original in the infobox. Use the FP for the DYK image, though. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a novel, a manga, a stage play, a film, a biography... now it's a GA! Thanks for all of the help with the Japanese sources. Dr. B left us with three points to consider, it appears, one of which is out of my league and one of which we can deal with right now (did you intend "It starred kabuki actor Nakamura Kankurō as Daigo and Rena Tanaka as Mika[79] when it debuted at Akasaka ACT Theater (ja) on 29 May 2010." to ensure that we weren't incorrect in case there was a casting change somewhere down the run?). I trimmed about 2k characters from "Awards" and "Reviews", but there may be more trimming possible in the future. So before we FAC this... wait for me to get the damn DVD (doubt it has anything we're missing, but who knows).

Hope you don't mind, but I plan to nominate Departures at DYK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! That was fast—so fast I didn't even notice it had passed before making my last comment. If you see anything else I've been involved with that you want to nominate at DYK, go ahead—I can't be bothered myself.

I can't remember what I intended with the wording of the theatre stuff, but I think the last comment I made would cover whichever interpretation. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, I've worked it in. The nomination is at Template:Did you know nominations/Departures (film); I decided to avoid emphasising the Oscar as the list already did when it was in DYK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some of those Japanese sources really look a nightmare to research and archive": Ha! Only because Japan has yet to join the 21st century and allow everything to be digitized. So far, not a single source I've used for Three Beauties is available even in snippet view on Google Books. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know, eh? Maybe if they'd allow greater access to serious research, the idea of Japan as the land of panties vending machines and tentacle porn would ... well, lose some of its power, at least. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That'd be a disaster! To ensure such a thing never happens, I'll devote the rest of the year to The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife and Urotsukidōji—funny story about that last one. When I was still technically a minor, I found a place in Oshawa that had started renting out anime, before it had all boomed. I became a member, and got to rent three videos (still in the VHS era). I wasn't familiar with this stuff besides Akira, so I asked the guy to pick three for me. He got me Battle Angel, Barefoot Gen, and Urotsukidōji—telling me nothing about it except: "Don't let your mother see this." Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Technically still a minor? I guess he didn't want to show you Ghibli yet... being both too old and too young to enjoy their work. Not familiar with Urotsukidōji, but since the article says it had sexcraft similar to La Blue Girl I can guess what it was like. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what now?. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live movies? As in, with live tentacles? That'd be the awesomest thing since Maniac Mansion!

("Technically" still a minor means I'd graduated high school but hadn't quite turned 18 yet). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good God, I've just googled around and found a bunch of video clips. It's definitely real, and barftastically awful (and I don't just mean the content). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't think Hafs would classify that as "art". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Crisco, don't be angry with me because of coat, somebody has to nice there too. Hafspajen (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not angry Haffy. I've just been fairly busy with the journal article (BTW, I answered your question a couple days ago, but you don't seem to have noticed that). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's an angle from which you could call such a travesty "art". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad Art? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (regarding image) at least we're not trying to push Pricasso on everyone! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my. Hafspajen (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to tell my parents. They'll be devastated. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Say, could you check to make sure I didn't make a mess of this article on a resurrected cinema? Google Translate seems to have hired a team of blind monkeys to do the work, so most of what I was reading was unintelligible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ! You're the king of obscure articles nobody but GA reviewers will ever read! I'll check the sources tomorrow when I've got access to my laptop (I'm leaving it at work so as not to tempt me from my textbooks), but I can tell you right away that 映画祭 just means "film festival", not "resurrection" anything. I assume you left off a kanji or two at the beginning. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if the Japanese Wikipedia has it (and the Chinese one???) we should. The original appears to have been 復活映画祭 (from ちなみに、復活映画祭の話を聞いた滝田監督は、「映画がきっかけになって映画館が復活するなんて、映画みたいな話だ」と語ったという。), so I'll insert that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for obscure... hey, I've done mainstream work! The award winning cock, for instance! (Or Departures, of course) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta love the NFB and their focus on intriguing CanCon subjects. I wonder if Bruce McDonald has ever tried to hit them up for the budget for his penis movie. The original author has excellent CanCon cred. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Damn that's some ... unique... subject material. Although for some reason I always thought "Tricky Dick" Nixon would have his head attached to somebody else... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Resurrection" sounds much more dramatic and cool, but I think "revival" is probably more appropriate. It's a bit more complicated, though, because in the same article, the flyer (and its caption) that is shown on the second page calls it the 港座復活祭, or the Minato-za Revival Festival, while 復活映画祭 is what's used exclusively in the body. Maybe jsut describe it as a revival festival rather than naming it? Either that, or I'd go with the name on the flyer, which is more likely to be official. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, went with the name on the flyer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I've squeezed your sources for whatever they were worth. Just one thing I couldn't figure out how to work in was:

On the face of the building is written 映像とサウンドのきらめき ("Glittering Images and Sound").((sfn|Yamaguchi|p=30))

I'll leave it to you to decide if it's worth including. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• どうもありがとう, 七面鳥さん, or whatever it's supposed to be. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Departures (film), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in discussing his film Departures, director Yōjirō Takita drew parallels between cellists and morticians? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Departures (film). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Three Beauties of the Present Day, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Utamaro was known for his depictions of Japanese beauties (pictured)? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Turkey-san, I have a sneaking suspicion that a GA reviewer may ask you to expand the lead. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm ... I've expanded it a bit. I hope it's enough, because I'm not sure there's a lot more in the article that screams "lead" to me". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see much from the legacy section in the lead, but the current version will probably be accepted. Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ... you can't just make these claims without backing them up.
• Yes I can.

I've put Departures up for PR in preparation for an FAC run next month. We don't have to worry about FAC timing too much; we are allowed to co-nom while also having our own nom up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, that's quick! If we're allowed multiple co-noms, we should throw a couple of copyedits into each others articles and nominate ten at a time . Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• LOL, I don't think that would be enough involvement for conomming . I found a Journal of Religion & Film article on Okuribito while looking for sources on Coffinman; definitely worth working in. It may be a good idea for us to trawl Jstor too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing on Coffiman at JSTOR, but there's "New Halves, Old Selves: Reincarnation and Transgender Identification in Ōshima Yumiko's 'Tsurubara-tsurubara'" by Emily Somers. I don't have access, so I don't know what's in it, but "New Half" is Wasei-eigo for a transgender person—I assume it mentions the opening scene of Okuribito. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "he comes to an understanding of people and the many different religions and faith traditions in modern Japan, from Shinto to Buddhism to Christianity"—this doesn't ring true with me—I don't remember religion coming up except during the Christmas scene. Am I misremembering? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Was thinking Jstor for Departures). Shame I don't have questia any more! Yeah, probably the trans woman. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • My reading of the Christmas scene was purely secular. In fact, I distinctly remember thinking "eh, look! it's not KFC!". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I meant that during the Christmas scene, Sasaki says something about how they perform their service for people of all religions. It's the only time I remember region coming up. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • What about the one where they are at a funeral in a church? It just passes by, probably all of five seconds for that shot, but I distinctly remember someone in white priest robes. I think it was during the cello playing sequence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hm. I don't remember, but okay, maybe there's something to the quote. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hopless. How many votes does a pic need at commons for fp, also five? Hafspajen (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was this meant to go here? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hafs, Commons needs (going off memory) at least 7. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. And I still think that they have much lower quality pictures. I was now watching hundreds of pictures of this Jeanne but I can't understan what should be wrong with our picture. Unless it is something else that is wrong. they are like this the best ones. Hafspajen (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]